Article

Meeting the Challenge: The Dynamics of Poverty in Connecticut

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

This Connecticut Poverty Report describes the change in the number and proportion of Connecticut residents living in poverty, and the increase in both number and percent between 1990 and 2010, based on Census Bureau reports. Demographic measures of age, race,family structure, education and job categories are tested statistically, for their alignment with poverty's growth over the twenty-year period.Policy recommendations acknowledge the current administration's efforts to increase employment, and suggest ways to improve existing state programs.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... Despite being quite wealthy on aggregate, CT has widespread income inequality and poverty [20]. These differences within the state are intertwined with a highly fragmented jurisdictional landscape. ...
... Of all other socioeconomic and demographic controls, specifications (2) and (3) are consistent with the negative impact associated with higher share of self-defined black residents. This result needs to be interpreted in light of the disproportionate number of low-income, non-white population in Connecticut [20], and in the USA [40]. Finally, median household income and the control for income above $100,000 are not significant, as well as the indicator for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. ...
... For instance, several works have found sets of socioeconomic demographic and spatial elements that encourage or reduce adoption of PV and other energy systems across various countries (e.g [2,12,21].). We argue that the interaction among these elements does not always follow the same patterns because mediated by institutional and social factors [45,20]. In the case of PV systems in CT, recent efforts are being made to target more densely populated areas, multi-family buildings, and lower-income areas, and proposals exist to introduce legislation on solar community gardens and other share-ownership initiatives [46]. ...
Article
Building upon recent literature, we combine a novel spatiotemporal variable with spatial methods to investigate and quantify the influence of the built environment and jurisdictional boundaries on spatial peer-effects (SPEs) in inner-city areas. We focus on the Hartford Capital region, using detailed data at block-group and PV system levels for the years 2005-2013. This region is part of a state, Connecticut, actively engaged in supporting PV system at residential level. Adoption of PV systems varies substantially, and state policies are mediated by town-level regulations. We initially employ typology analysis to investigate the heterogeneity of the block groups with higher adoption rates. We then use panel FE and spatial estimations to determine the existence of spill-overs of SPEs beyond town boundaries. Our estimations suggest that new PV systems have a more limited spatiotemporal influence in inner-cities. We identify spatial spill-overs from neighboring block groups even between towns, suggesting that SPEs transcend municipal barriers. We do not find significant results for built-environment, although we identify several data limitations. Our results suggest that centralized, non-voluntary support policies may have larger effects if implemented beyond town-level, and that SPEs change their determination power depending on the underlying built environment. Highlights • We build upon previous spatial peer-effect (SPEs) theory and empirical research. • We focus on am urban environment (BE) with strict jurisdictional boundaries (JB). • We combine spatial & Panel models to verify the influence of BE and JB on SPEs. • We determine JBs do not curb spatial peer effects. • The BE reduces the spatial and temporal effects of spatial peer effects.
... Despite appearing quite wealthy on aggregate, CT has widespread income inequality, the third highest in the USA according to its GINI index, and poverty, which affects 21% of its residents (Census, 2012;Carstensen and Coghlan, 2013). These differences within the state are intertwined with a highly fragmented jurisdictional landscape. ...
... The two models are identical except that in column (2) (2) and (3) are consistent with the negative impact associated with higher share of self-defined black residents. This result needs to be interpreted in light of the disproportionate number of low-income, non-white population in Connecticut (Carstensen and Coghlan, 2013), and in the USA (Li and Harris, 2008). Finally, median household income and the control for income above $100,000 are not significant, as well as the indicator for the Dow Jones Industrial ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
While the State of Connecticut has been actively supporting the adoption of residential photovoltaic systems for the past few years, adoption of this technology is uneven across towns. Combining hierarchical clustering and empirical estimations, this paper examines the profile of adopters, the role of the built environment and the nature and power of spatial peer-effects across four inner-city and suburban municipalities in Connecticut. Using detailed data, we found clustered patterns of adoption, often mediated by the existence of spatial barriers. The local profile of adopters differs from town to town, especially in higher-income towns. Our empirical spatial estimations show a lower degree of influence of spatial peer effect compared to the one previously assessed for Connecticut. Further, we identify spatial spill-overs from neighboring block groups even between towns, suggesting that peer effects transcend municipal barriers. These results are useful for formulating policies governing PV systems in inner-city and suburban areas.
... As of 2012, Connecticut has the third highest median household income in the USA (2012 $66,844), about 30% higher than the national value (Census, 2013). Despite appearing quite wealthy on aggregate, Connecticut has widespread income inequality, the third highest in the USA according to its GINI index, and poverty, which affects 21% of its residents (Census, 2012;Carstensen and Coghlan, 2013). These differences within the state are backed by the current jurisdictional fragmentation: the state is divided in to 169 towns, which retain wide powers in several regulatory matters. ...
Article
Full-text available
Growing concern about global climate change and energy security are prompting reconsideration of how energy—particularly electricity—is generated, transmitted, and consumed in the United States and across the globe. While an increasing amount of households are adopting solar power across the developed world, the spatial and socioeconomic factors that shape whether or not people adopt this technology is under-theorized (especially with regard to spatial drivers), and not well researched from an empirical perspective. In my dissertation, I present a conceptual model to describe and understand the socioeconomic and spatial factors affecting the diffusion of PV systems. I build my model on the socio-technical tradition. Further, I present two empirical studies where I combine statistical and mapping techniques aimed at finding the spatial patterns and the underlying drivers influencing the adoption of PV systems in Connecticut since 2005. I develop an innovative spatiotemporal band to control for spatial peer effects, while using several socioeconomic and spatial variables to control for other factors. Contrary to previous literature, I find that medium-sized centers represent the source of the diffusion, rather than larger, more populous towns. Further, I find that spatial peer effects positively affect the adoption process, while the lack of more refined and spatially conscious policies tend to make adoption more difficult in densely populated areas. However, spatial peer effects tend to decrease in magnitude as time and space increase. Finally, I find that current policies, which do not taking in to account the differences in the socioeconomic and built environment among towns in Connecticut, fail to reach potential adopters residing in multi-family buildings or in renter-occupied houses.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.